English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Permalink
A comprehensive and precise definition of “work-family balance” was proposed by Greenhaus and Allen (2011), who concluded that work-family balance is achieved when individuals experience a sense of effectiveness and satisfaction in both their work and family domains, based on their prioritization and value placed on each role. However, it is important to note that conflicts between work and family can arise when tasks and responsibilities from these two domains become incompatible in some way (S. C. Clark, 2016; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For instance, a conflict may arise when a parent has a sick child and is unable to fully focus on work due to this situation, or when an individual experiences stress from downsizing at their workplace, affecting their ability to maintain a harmonious family life.
On the other hand, when individuals are able to derive personal benefits from their experiences in both the work and family domains, a phenomenon known as “work-family enrichment” occurs (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). This concept suggests that skills or behaviors developed in one domain can have positive effects and reverberate in the other domain (Eldor et al., 2016; Lapierre et al., 2018; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2018; Vaziri et al., 2020). An illustrative example of work-family enrichment is when a parent develops effective conflict resolution skills through managing disputes between their children, and then transfers these skills to their role as a leader in the workplace. Similarly, an individual may develop strong planning skills in their work environment and apply these skills to their personal life.
These theories have been garnering attention from companies, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic (Vaziri et al., 2020), due to their need to retain talent and the increasing awareness of the benefits for businesses when employees have a more balanced life. Examples of these benefits for companies include increased job satisfaction and commitment (Kalliath et al., 2019; Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2018), improved job performance (Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015; Ronda et al., 2016), reduced turnover intention (Allen, 2001; Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015; Norling & Chopik, 2020), and enhanced general health and well-being, resulting in decreased absences due to occupational problems (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011).
Recently, international organizations such as the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL), and the International Labor Organization (ILO) have recognized work-family balance as an emerging issue that requires attention, particularly from businesses and public policymakers (Chzhen et al., 2019; International Labour Organization, 2021; Vaca-Trigo, 2019). This recognition is due to the benefits of work-family balance for early childhood development (Chzhen et al., 2019), as well as its effect on fertility rates (Bratti, 2023) - an issue receiving increasing interest due to current demographic changes. Furthermore, an organizational culture that encourages greater integration between work and family is viewed as a tool for promoting gender equality (Grau-Grau et al., 2021) and has a positive impact on the economy, leading to an increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018).
In this sense, there is a case for investigating how to promote work-family balance. But how? Organizational support, defined as the assistance provided by companies to enhance the well-being and meet the needs of employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), can play a crucial role in achieving work-family balance.
The Job-Demands and Resources Theory (Bakker et al., 2023) explains how job demands and resources influence job performance through employee well-being. From the organizational literature, we know that employees can deal with a certain amount of job demands provided that there are enough job resources available (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Building on JD-R theory, Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012) integrate spillover theories with JD-R theory and propose a Work-Home Resources model that explains how work and home interact. The proposed model states that (a) job demands and resources may influence home outcomes through volatile personal resources (e.g., mood, energy) and (b) home demands and resources may simultaneously influence work outcomes through the same volatile personal resources. Furthermore, the authors propose that macro resources (e.g., culture) and key resources (e.g., personality, skills) moderate these spillover processes because macro and key resources affect how individuals deal with home and job demands and how individuals mobilize their home and job resources.
Family-friendly organizational culture describes the extent to which an organization’s enacted values support the integration of the employees’ work and family roles (Thompson et al., 1999). Therefore, it antecedes work-family balance and may moderate the relationship between organizational resources and the employees’ overall level of contentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of success at meeting work and family role demands - satisfaction with work-family balance (Valcour, 2007). To help employees tackle the issues they face when juggling work and family, organizations can provide resources. Previous studies have investigated how sources of resources such as Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors (Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015) and family-friendly policies (French & Shockley, 2020) influence work-family balance. Organizations may invest in providing a resource, and the receiver perceives that resource as organizational support or not - or perceives it as more or less relevant due to current circumstances. This perceived organizational support (POS), which is employees’ general belief that their organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), reflects the individual evaluation of support that includes and exceeds work-family related resources and is influenced by other variables.
Hence, despite the existence of evidence on organizational resources’ effect on employee’s behavior, the process of how organizations’ support may increase work-family balance is still subject to a more precise definition. Therefore, a scoping review was conducted to map current research conducted within the past five years, providing an overview of high-quality studies on this topic, besides offering summarized strategies for companies, and up-to-date insights for future research.
Method
A preliminary search for scoping reviews on this issue was conducted in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and JSTOR before initiating the data collection process, but no relevant results were found. Scoping reviews are used for mapping literature, compiling evidence, and identifying research gaps (Arksey & O’Malley, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2011; Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2020). According to Arksey and O’Malley (2007), a scoping review should follow a framework of planning and execution to ensure methodological reliability; specifically, it is necessary to: 1) define a research question, 2) identify relevant studies, 3) select the articles for review, 4) tabulate and assess the results, and 5) summarize the findings.
To enhance the study’s quality, we based our research on the guidelines proposed by Peters et al. (2020) and we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), suggested by Tricco et al. (2018). The research question was “What current literature brings about the support of organizations regarding the work-family balance of employees?”.
A literature search was conducted in three databases (Web of Science, JSTOR, e Scielo.org), using the following keywords (in quotation marks): “work-family balance”, “work-life balance”, “family-friendly”, “family policies”, and “family-supportive”. The search was conducted in the first semester of 2020 by the two researchers (the authors) and the results were compared before each stage of selection. Articles published from 2015 to 2019 were selected — the previous five years, an interval considered to represent “up-to-date” research. Finally, all selected articles were charted in a table that included the following information: reference, study’s aim, study’s design, study’s approach, data source (primary, secondary, another), sampling method, instruments used, main findings, suggestions for future studies, practical implications.
To increase consistency, the two authors jointly developed a protocol to determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion between the reviewers (Peters et al., 2020).
To be eligible for inclusion in the review, papers needed to measure or focus on work-family balance and correlated constructs, or they needed to examine an organizational source of work-family support. Additionally, the papers had to be written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. With the aim of mapping high-quality data, we exclusively included articles from peer-reviewed journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database. Furthermore, we considered papers with data triangulation (Krefting, 1991) and/or relevant sampling.
Papers were excluded if they did not align with the conceptual framework of our study. For example, we excluded papers that aimed to develop research measures or focused on public policies, conceptual or theoretical frameworks. Additionally, we excluded papers that involved non-representative or highly specific samples, such as nurses from X city. Furthermore, we assessed the relevance of each article. To be considered relevant, an article needed to address the organizational role in promoting work-family balance and examine related outcomes, aligning with the focus of our research question.
Results and Discussion
The search returned 4,357 articles. Following the PRISMA-ScR, in the “screening” stage, we read the titles and abstracts of all articles and excluded those that did not fit the work-family theme. Out of the 1,140 articles selected for abstract reading, 107 were duplicates, and 130 were unavailable. After reading all the abstracts and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the ‘eligibility’ stage, we selected 224 articles. After full reading, more articles were removed due to not fitting in our research question. The final sample, consisting of 57 papers eligible for the study, represents the ‘included’ stage. For a complete list of included studies, see Appendix. The following flow diagram summarizes our findings:
A descriptive analysis of the data showed that most of the studies were quantitative (93%, n = 53), cross-sectional (77%, n = 44), and collected primary data (52%). Most studies were conducted in European countries (49%, n = 28), the USA (19%, n = 11), and South Korea (9%, n = 5). Regarding the year of publication, many were published in 2019 (n = 18), followed by 2018 (n = 11) and 2016 (n = 11), 2017 (n = 9), and 2015 (n = 8).
The chart (Figure 2) summarizes what businesses can do to support the work-family balance of employees by presenting the frequency of suggested actions that appeared in results or practical implications from the analyzed articles. More than one topic may have appeared in the same article. The most frequently cited topic was “training supervisors in family-supportive behaviors”, which appeared 24 times.
Note. The vertical-axis displays the actions and the horizontal-axis presents the frequency in numbers
Figure 2 Frequency of actions that businesses can take to support the work-family balance of employees
To better organize the evidences found in the scope review, we present our results divided into sections. Articles includes in the scope review are indicated with an asterisk (*) to differentiate them from those we used for discussion.
Family-Supportive Supervisor Behaviors
The most frequent topic cited among the articles found was “Family-Supportive Supervisor Behaviors (FSSB)”. Supervisors have an important role in establishing an inclusive work environment, especially for those with caregiving responsibilities (Hwang, 2018)*, and, because they have direct contact with their team members, employees can experience organizational culture through their attitudes (Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015; Matthews & Toumbeva, 2015)*. Even when long hours of work are reported, the support of direct supervisor can have a positive effect in the work-family balance of employees (Haar et al., 2018)*. That is what Hammer et al. (2006) presented in their model about FSSB drawing on work-family theory (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
As well as in seminal studies about the topic (Allen, 2001; Allen et al., 2000; Greenhaus et al., 2003; Hammer et al., 2006), the outcomes of supportive behaviors presented in the research found in our scoping review were: increased creativity (McKersie et al., 2019)*, higher work-engagement (Qing et al., 2021)*, greater job satisfaction (Braun & Peus, 2018)*, enhanced commitment (Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015), improved work-family balance (Braun & Peus, 2018; Haar et al., 2018)*, better performance at work (Rofcanin et al., 2018)*, and reduced turnover intentions (Las Heras, Trefalt, et al., 2015)*. On the other hand, when supervisors fail to support work-family demands, they tend to be ostracized in the workplace (Walsh et al., 2019)*, which can be detrimental to both their well-being and the workplace dynamics.
Another point related to FSSB is the “I-deal” (idiosyncratic deals), which refers to negotiated agreements between employees and employers (Rousseau et al., 2006). Although the initiation of negotiations typically comes from the employee in the I-deal theory, while FSSB presupposes a proactive attitude from the supervisor (Crain & Stevens, 2018), there is a positive relationship between the two (Kelly et al., 2018). Thus, investing in FSSB can create a favorable environment for employees to take more initiative in negotiating their arrangements, which can reduce turnover intentions and enhance their work-family balance and job performance (Las Heras et al., 2017; Las Heras, Trefalt, et al., 2015)*.
The Role Of Co-Workers
While a supportive supervisor is important, toxic relationships among employees can undermine the work-family balance. Co-workers have the potential to provide assistance with task completion and emotional support, creating a healthy workplace relationship (Daverth et al., 2016; McMullan et al., 2018)*.
Organizational Culture x Benefits
Organizational culture and informal support, such as support from supervisors and coworkers, have a greater impact on employee outcomes compared to the exclusive provision of benefits, policies, or practices (M. A. Clark et al., 2017; Stock et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2016)*. Family-supportive cultures have been shown to reduce gender wage gaps and gender inequalities in the workplace (Pailhé & Solaz, 2019; Van der Lippe et al., 2019)* and increase job satisfaction while decreasing turnover intentions (M. A. Clark et al., 2017)*. Although the offer of benefits can sustain a family-supportive culture (T. Kim & Mullins, 2014; Zheng et al., 2015)*, workers may hesitate to use them due to potential career setbacks, particularly for mothers (O’Connor & Cech, 2018; Pasamar, 2015; Wheatley, 2017)*.
It is important to consider employee demands when designing benefits, policies, or practices (Liu et al., 2019; Stavrou & Ierodiakonou, 2016; Zheng et al., 2015)*. A personalized approach that recognizes the unique needs of each worker has been found to be more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach, although it may be challenging for many companies to implement (Hammer et al., 2006; Perrigino et al., 2018). Training supervisors in family-supportive behaviors and empowering them to customize available policies to meet individual needs can be a practical strategy (Hammer et al., 2006).
Within a family-supportive culture or under supportive supervisors, workers are more likely to utilize work-family benefits (T. Kim & Mullins, 2014)*. The most frequently cited benefits in the scoping review for achieving work-family balance were childcare services and flexible arrangements. On-site childcare services can enhance the commitment and job satisfaction of working parents, particularly mothers (Feierabend & Staffelbach, 2016; Hwang, 2018; Lauber & Storck, 2019; Van der Lippe et al., 2019)*. Flexible arrangements, such as teleworking, flexible work schedules, compressed workweeks, and job-sharing, were also commonly cited (Berkery et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018; Erden Bayazit & Bayazit, 2019; Gahlawat et al., 2019; Heywood & Miller, 2015; Kotey & Sharma, 2016; Kröll & Nüesch, 2019; Stavrou & Ierodiakonou, 2016; Wheatley, 2017; Zheng et al., 2016)*. These arrangements are increasingly sought after due to long commuting times, particularly in large cities, which have been associated with lower commitment and well-being at work (Emre & De Spiegeleare, 2021)*. Flexible arrangements are also linked to lower absenteeism, lower turnover, and improved performance (Berkery et al., 2017)*.
Workload, Hours of Work and “The Ideal Worker”
However, two factors that significantly impact work-life balance are often overlooked: workload and long working hours. Working more than 40 hours per week has been associated with poor mental health (Kleiner et al., 2015)* and increased risk of injuries (J. Kim, 2018)*. Even with flexible arrangements, achieving work-life balance becomes challenging when the workload is excessive (Brauner et al., 2019)*. The culture of long working hours is often associated with the notion of the “ideal worker,” someone who is fully committed and dedicated to their work role in terms of time and resources (Williams, 2000). Consequently, mothers bear the brunt of having to work long hours while juggling family responsibilities (Andringa et al., 2015; Bender & Roche, 2016; Correll et al., 2015; Walters & Whitehouse, 2014*), as they face societal expectations and pressures related to their caregiving roles (Williams, 2000; Williams et al., 2013). Due to the lack of accommodation by organizations, mothers often end up leaving their jobs or abandoning leadership positions (Padavic et al., 2020). This is one reason why women prioritize companies that offer childcare services, even if the salary is lower (Fuller, 2018; Yoo & Oh, 2017*).
Is the Production Still Europeanized?
Approximately half of the studies (49%, n = 28) were conducted in Europe, which remains the predominant region in the field of “work-family” research. Interestingly, around 10% (n = 5) of the studies utilized samples from South Korea, a country known for having the lowest fertility rate worldwide (OECD, 2022). This finding is intriguing and suggests that South Korea’s efforts to address this issue through work-family policies may have contributed to an increase in academic production in this area (E. J. Kim & Parish, 2022; OECD, 2019).
Additionally, there were five studies that included samples from Latin America, despite the majority of the authors being from Europe. These studies encompassed various countries such as El Salvador (Las Heras et al., 2017)*; Brazil (Bosch et al., 2018)*; Brazil, Chile and Ecuador (Las Heras, Trefalt, et al., 2015)*; Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, and Peru (Las Heras, Bosch, et al., 2015)*; Chile and Argentina (Rofcanin et al., 2018)*. Although the representation of Latin American samples in the articles is notable, it is crucial to address the unique challenges of our region, such as high rates of informality, inequalities, and pronounced gender gaps, in order to find context-specific solutions for work-family balance. Furthermore, disseminating these findings in high-quality English-language journals is essential for broader impact and recognition.
Implications and Agenda for Future Research
The conclusions drawn from these findings point towards a future work scenario in which inclusive businesses have a low workload, shorter working hours and high levels of family-supportive behaviors from supervisors and top management, all of them consolidated in a family-supportive organizational culture. Businesses need to assume family is an important stakeholder, and therefore worthy of attention from organizations (Walters & Whitehouse, 2014)*.
Companies and organizations aiming to enhance employee outcomes should invest not only in offering benefits, policies, or practices but also in cultivating a family-supportive culture. Leadership plays a vital role in demonstrating organizational culture to employees. Therefore, it is essential to align leadership attitudes with the organizational culture through mentoring and training programs. In addition, top management and supervisors should observe the workload and working hours of all employees and design strategies to decrease both accordingly, in order to achieve a work-life balance for everyone, especially those with caregiving responsibilities. Flexible work arrangements can complement these efforts, with the understanding that organizational culture should support, rather than stigmatize, those who choose to utilize such policies.
In the context of sustainability, an emerging global topic in the business realm, future research could explore the link between family-supportive organizational culture and the social pillar of sustainability.
Additional suggestions for future studies that emerged from our scoping review include: collecting data from multiple sources (such as company reports, key performance indicators, or HR metrics) in addition to self-reported questionnaires; investigating topics from both employee and management perspectives and comparing them; examining the differences between small, medium, and large enterprises; utilizing cross-cultural samples; using mixed methods (combining quantitative and qualitative approaches for a more comprehensive understanding of the topics); and employing longitudinal designs. While many studies included in the scoping review relied on secondary data, the use of primary data could provide better control over variables, representing an additional suggestion for future investigations.
Limitations
This study also has limitations, including the inclusion of articles written in only a few languages. The scoping review process involved the participation of the two authors. However, to enhance the quality of data gathering, the involvement of additional researchers would have been desirable. The utilization of review tools (e.g. software) could have ensured greater accuracy in the results. Moreover, our search was confined to a limited number of databases, which may have restricted the number of articles identified.
Conclusion
Organizations are under pressure to be more socially responsible and operate in a sustainable manner. There are four types of motives for responsible corporate behavior, which can be distinguished as coming from pressures of primary stakeholders, governments and institutions, and social groups (Waddock et al., 2002). Additionally, moral motivations also play a role (Melé, 2011). When organizations are confronted with decisions that could impact their bottom line, they may face the dilemma of choosing between short-term returns and long-term investments. Sometimes, they might also encounter limited options. However, even in times when costly benefits are not feasible for organizations, there are still ways to promote greater work-family balance.
